Letters to the Editor
-
Wow what a misstep
The far left is the most anti space science demographic of all. Left to their devices all manned spaceflight would end in a few years for the remainder of the century. Part of this has to do with pure ignorance in that in recent surveys random Americans were asked what the size of NASA's budget was. Something like one out of five said it was as large or larger than the defense department. In truth it's about 3%-5%
-
The idea of a lunar outpost
that would be beneficial for a manned flight to Mars is laughably bad science. Basically, a good rule of thumb for any scientific endeavor would be, if George Bush supported it it's a bad idea. Manned space flight is far more expensive and dangerous than non-manned space exploration.
Space exploration and study is a great thing, and I even support manned space flight, but this Constellation program is not sound policy. You know the old saying, it's not rocket science? Well this really is. And who on Earth would want George Bush to be their rocket scientist?
-
Mars!
Oh wait, wasn't that used in '04?
-
So 20th Century...
Manned space flight is an idea that is past its prime. Unmanned space exploration delivers much more return on investment.
-
Wow, what a ridiculous, overgeneralizing straw man
And, yet, so typical. Running out of material?
-
Hmmm, When Appealing To The Democratic Base...
Do I go for supporting the LOOOOONNNNNNNGGGG-term space-dreams of our Boy-President? Or do I go for funding education, the perennial and penultimate liberal cause?
-
He's past his prime
Bill Clinton is past his prime; they really should take him off the campaign trail altogether. It seems like every time she gets her mind wrapped around one message or another, he muddies it up. It's almost like he's got a passive-aggressive thing going; he's apparently working for her to win, but deep down he doesn't really want her to. He's definitely lost the magic touch, though, that he had when he was the "Obama" -- the young, upstart candidate from Hope who wanted to change things in Washington.
Seeing the Clinton's campaign now reminds some of us who were inspired by the Hillary and Bill-Al and Tipper campaign back then of how entrenched they've become and how far they've moved past their prime politically.
I'm not talking age; I'm in their age group. They just both seem flat and tired and "so 90's" as the kids say. They don't seem to have come into this time. Al Gore moved into the future; they seem stuck in the past.
I'm coming to believe Hillary when she talks about what a hard job it is to be president. Isn't that George Bush's mantra? If the job is too hard, then stick with the one you've got. I'm voting for the person with energy, passion and enthusiasm for the job who respects its importance but doesn't seem weighed down by it.
-
Hillary's banking on idiocy again
As already stated, a lunar base does nothing to get us closer to getting humans on Mars. It actually costs more fuel to get to Mars from the moon than it does from low earth orbit. Besides, if we're going to spend tons of money to build a semi-permanent base, why not just do it on Mars where it needs to be anyway?
The Constellation program is sloppy thinking direct from Bush's addled brain and is nothing but a boondoggle waiting to happen. Since it isn't feasible or sensible to send people to the outer planets, the only reason for putting humans in space now is to go to Mars. (Or possibly doing what the moon *is* good for and building a telescope array on its far side.) For everything else, robotic probes are much cheaper and safer.
I hope the people of Houston see through this cheap pandering and make a stand for a sane space exploration policy -- we haven't had one of those since the 60s.
-
Uh.. before she blasts off , the law may wish a few words..
Hillary the lawyer, is being duped by schizophrenic Hillary the snake oil salesman.
Here's an interesting contract for you legal schmegel types to review:
Hillary just made this verbatim offer to thousands of people in her Fort Worth campaign speech, and possibly other speeches with thousands more people:
" I'll make a contract with you, if you vote for me I will do my best ...as President.. for you."
If a politician make a verbal 'contract' like that can that politician/Hillary be held in breach when either (a.)she doesn't become President or (b.)she does become President but screws the voters the same way the recent Democratic leaders in Congress did.
Either way, it is a lack of performance and thus a breach of contract on her part, correct. Not exactly is the answer because we'll we spend forever in court arguing over the meaning of "my best"!
That sounds like a Columbia House deal I once got suckered into, and am still paying for!
-
OMG!
*rollllling my eyes!*
NOW she's promising the moon and the stars. Can no one around her point out how desperate and ridiculous she looks with each new day's ideas???? The attacks on Obama, the "kitchen sink", and now this! She's getting more pathetic all the time, and SHE NEEDS TO GO AWAY, for the good of the party, the country and the world!
AND the frickin' bloody UNIVERSE AS WELL!
sheeeeeeesh.
siri@legitgov.org
www.legitgov.org
-
Silly season
I am still wondering when Clinton will start wearing an "I'm with stupid" T-shirt, but I am now confused as to which Clinton should wear it.
-
Does America really want Clinton style Socialism?
Unfortunately it's essential to preempt any Clinton speech with a hefty dose of truth serum. In the latest debate, Hillary regurgitated her familiar mantra that she would veto the falsely maligned Bush taxcuts which resuscitated the U.S. economy from the inherited Clinton recession; but, which Hillary says favor only the rich. That tired old populist ploy of "soak the rich". However , a brief review of IRS statistics related to post-Bush tax cut revenues reveals exactly the opposite. Specifically, the share of individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40% of American taxpayers, as a result of expanded child tax credits and earner income tax credits, was reduced from 0% to a -4%; and, took another ten million low income Americans completely off of the tax roles. That is, a very significant four(4) % decrease. On the other end of the scale, the tax burden on the top 20% of income earners, the so-called rich, increased to a full 85% of the total tax burden. For example a Single Individual making 30K paid $8400 in taxes under Clinton; under Bush $4500. A married couple making 60K: under Clinton $16,800, under Bush $9000. So Hillaryspeak, an economic strategy that left our Nation in a RECESSION on the Clinton's departure from the White House, would damage the poor more then any other group. One can summarize this quite simply by noting that IF Hillary's Marxist philosophies of soaking the rich were valid, Communist societies throughout the world would be exorbitantly wealthy, in lieu of economic basket cases a' la Castro's Cuba. The same can be said of her forced plan for Socialized Medicine. A program which is failing miserably in such Nations as Canada and the United Kingdom. Canada, as just one example, is now experiencing a dramatic shortfall in physicians. The American electorate should carefully evaluate the Marxist rhetoric coming from the Hillary campaign and her minions. Greg Neubeck